Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2013 Page 2 of about 78 results (0.064 seconds)

Jul 19 2013 (HC)

Uco Bank,zonal Office, Rep by the Zonal Vs. Smt K Sugunalakshmi W/O La ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-19-2013

..... which was legitimately due to her. her legal hairs are also not allowed to enjoy the fruits of success in the writ petition.16. there is no error much less patent error in the decision arrived at by the learned single judge. learned single judge has considered all the contentions urged on behalf of respondent bank justifying their decision to withhold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2013 (HC)

T.Madan Mohan Reddy,s/O Lalte T.Chandra Vs. the State of A.P., Reptd b ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-29-2013

..... , therefore, incredulous and a mere subterfuge. the alleged procedure followed by respondent no.5 in publication of notice through the purported substituted service, namely, by affixture of the notice constitutes patent procedural illegality which resulted in denial of a valuable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.with regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2013 (HC)

G.Santhi Priya and OThe Vs. M/S. Andhra Trade Development Corporatio

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-25-2013

..... appellants. the apportionment of the liabilities, as directed by the tribunal, was maintained by the learned single judge. this appeal is filed by the appellants, under clause 15 of letters patent, feeling aggrieved by the limited enhancement of the compensation by the learned single judge. according to them, the deceased was no way responsible for the accident, and it is a ..... order passed by the tribunal. the liability of the 2nd respondent shall stand restricted to rs.15,000/- only, as provided under the relevant policy. in the result, the letters patent appeal is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above. there shall be no order as to costs. the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2013 (HC)

The Universityof Hyderabad Rep. by It Vs. Sadik HussaIn Andothers

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-09-2013

..... interlocutory orders and hence in our considered view the same does not satisfy the trappings of the judgments as defined under clause 15 of the letters patent and it will be appropriate for the appellant to file vacate petition. accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of with the said observation. miscellaneous ..... in exercise of original jurisdiction to a division bench. in shah babulal khimji v. jayaben d. kania7 the scope of clause 15 of the letters patent was considered. this court held: ".the concept of a judgment as defined by the code of civil procedure seems to be rather narrow and the ..... determine the rights and obligations of the parties, are not ".judgment". for the purpose of filing appeals provided under clause 15 of the letters patent. the relevant portion of the judgment at paragraph nos.12, 15 and 16 are extracted as under for better appreciation:12. we will next consider ..... is not maintainable. the apex court in the decision referred to supra while interpreting the word ".judgment". occurring in section 15 of the letters patent held that interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of case which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a parties, but which do not ..... the course of hearing. the learned single judge passed only interlocutory order against which the present appeal is filed under section 15 of the letters patent. 07. it is to be noticed that by passing the present interim order, the learned single judge has not finally decided the rights and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2013 (HC)

Kapadam Sangalappa and 5 Others Vs. Kamatam Sangalappa and 2 Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-28-2013

..... v. sheikh habib8, the supreme court observed: "1. ... ... ... a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... ... ..." 20. on the strength of these decisions, the learned additional advocate general contended that the very review is ..... at the time when the order was made.2. it can be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record.3. to correct the patent error of law or fact which stares in the fact.4. the expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in order xlvii rule 1 cpc has to be interpreted in the ..... be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility'".13. the supreme court observed in inderchand jain v. motilal2 that review is not an appeal in disguise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2013 (HC)

E.V. Ranga Reddy. Vs. Union of India Rep. by Its Deputy Secret

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-14-2013

..... 13-03-2006. the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. the petitioner challenges the said order. it is pleaded that the 1st respondent committed patent illegality in extending the period stipulated by this court for filing of revision. it is also stated that even otherwise, the 1st respondent ought to have waited after passing the ..... deal with that question. in condonation of delay or extending the time in such cases, the 1st respondent would be usurping the powers and jurisdiction of this court. therefore, a patent illegality has crept into the order dated 17-08-2011, through which, the 1st respondent has condoned the delay. once the order, condoning the delay becomes untenable, the one, passed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2013 (HC)

J.Rajaia Vs. the Government of A.P. and Oth

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-20-2013

..... earlier occasion, he mooted the proposals before the district collector and on being required by the latter, he has addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent soliciting opinion. he committed patent illegality in submitting the proposals to the district collector once again. it needs to be borne in mind that the proposals are put before the district collector, through specific proceedings ..... issued, and withdrawn at a later point of time, could have been averted. he submits that the order passed by the tribunal in o.a.no.4873 of 2010, is patently illegal, since it cannot, by itself, reduce the punishment. he submits that even where a court or tribunal finds that the punishment imposed against an employee is shockingly disproportionate, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2013 (HC)

Reliabilityengineering Industries and a Vs. Aesseal India Privatelimit ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-10-2013

..... act, which is not applicable to the present proceedings. the learned counsel for the petitioners.on the other hand, has contended that the petitioners do not have patent right or copyright in respect of their mechanical seals and drawings. but it is not their case of infringement of the confidential information and infringement or intellectual property ..... from carrying out any business of engaging in employment directly and indirectly which would cause them to infringe the confidential information, trade secrets and intellectual property rights including patents and designs of the petitioners.the one claimed in i.a.no.263 of 2012 is to restrain the defendants and their respective principal officers.directors.promoters.shareholders. ..... already existing. efforts are made to ensure that the benefit of such invention and discovery is not appropriated clandestinely by others.it is here, that the phenomenon of copyright, patent, licence, franchise, etc., become relevant. the relationship between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other has been furnished in brief, in preceding ..... with defendants 1 and 4 and from carrying out any business or engagement in employment that would result in infringement of confidential information, trade secretes, intellectual property rights, patents and designs of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs pleaded that after they acquired the 9th defendant, together with the assets and intellectual properties and made the directors and employees .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2013 (HC)

Tirupathi Subba Rao and 4 Others Vs. the Superintending Engineer Roads ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-26-2013

..... navuduru gram panchayat to construct a bus shelter in r.s.no.77 of veeravasaram in front of the existing permanent bus shelter already constructed by respondent no.5 is patently arbitrary and illegal. the narration of the facts in brief would expose the frivolous nature of this case. the road margin portion of veeravasaram to penumandra road, vested in roads .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2013 (HC)

J.Krishnamach Vs. the State Government of A.P., Rep.by Its

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-06-2013

..... the husband of respondent no.6 under the rti act as an appeal and examine the title over the subject land. he further submitted that respondent no.2 has committed a patent illegality in setting aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner on a completely erroneous assumption that the land is a government land based .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //